Agricultural ties - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Grŵp agored
|
Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012
|
Gweithgaredd diwethaf - Heddiw
Agricultural ties
We've recently had two appeals allowed for agricultural workers' dwellings (on essential need) and the Inspectors have decided not to tie the house to the land. The inspector’s argument in the first appeal (referred to in the second by a different Inspector) is that if the sight and sound need evaporates, then the use of the dwelling is still restricted by the occupancy condition so that is OK in policy terms. However, without the tie in restriction in the first place there is no mechanism to test whether the sight and sound rationale has properly fallen away. Without that restriction the owner could simply sell or let the unit to any agricultural/rural worker and come forward with an application for another dwelling based on the original sight and sound essential need. Is this something others have come across recently?
Just wondering: Where does the sight-and-sound phrase originate? It's not in the now deleted & revoked PPS7. It's not in the NPPF. Oddly it IS in several LPA's local plans. So how far exactly is within 'sight-and-sound'? 100 meters? If so, does this mean that holdings over say 5 acres are generally NOT within sight-and-sound of a dwelling? How about use of CCTV and remote microphones? Some might say that process-based (possibly home-made) quasi-laws such as 'sight-and-sound' are contrivances to block applications where no real legal basis exists. We need laws when say what they mean and mean what they say. The Inspector recognises the fact that the rules are to achieve a certain goal, and if binding legal clauses perform that adequately, great.
Nick - on basis that appeal was argued on needs on the actual specific holding rather than a wider need of the area and was found acceptable only on that basis then my initial reaction is to query the soundness of the decision.
Richard, I would imagine sight and sound gained a foothold as an easy way of summarising the functional need test in relation to livestock. That's certainly how I used it in my post; it's not in our local plan(s). I expect you will find the second decision interesting: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.5250090&NAME=/2184179%20DECISION.pdf Kelvin, the essential need was indeed related only to the specific holding.